Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Is it art? Who cares?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I keep seeing discussions here in the forum complaining about much of what is often described as contemporary art and thought it worthy of a separate stream - so to set the ball rolling here a few random thoughts on the subject.
I sometimes wonder if we take the notion of 'art' too much to heart. We become obsessed with the question: is it art?, and decry exponents of contemporary art as being elitist, yet, in doing so and dismissing their work as 'rubbish', is it not us who are assuming the elitist mantle?Rather than asking if something is art perhaps we should instead be asking ourselves: does it please the senses, is it good on the eye, and does it arouse emotions? To put it another way, should we ask if something is aesthetically pleasing rather question whether or not it could be classied as art? Does it really matter? Whilst out walking in the lanes around my village a few days ago I came across some branches which had fallen in a pile; it wasn't created or even placed there intentionally by the hand of man.The colours of the wood, the shapes of the individual pieces and the way they were interwoven caught my attention and I stood there for some time in appreciation. For me it was aesthetically pleasing but it wasn't created by man in the name of art. Many others (perhaps the vast majority) would have passed it by including many artists. After all appreciation of the aesthetic isn't the sole domain of either artists or non-artists. I also love gardening and enjoy the attraction of contasts in foliage, colours and plant shapes, whether arrived at by design or accident or by self seeding.When I look out of my window and I can see a single brick in the wall with a whole range of exciting colours from siennas to blues to greens. Yet a single brick doesn't comply with the perceived convention which we refer to as art. If I were to put a pile of branches, or a garden border (if that were possible) or a brick in an exhibition (and I would be in good company), I can imagine the uproar: 'thats not art - someones taking the mickey - what a load of rubbish'. And yet these items could be far more interesting and pleasing to the senses than the conventional artwork on display. Forget whether something is art (whatever that is), just open your minds and enjoy it for what it is - something that appeals, interests, excites - etc. If it does none of these things for you then simply walk on by as you would do for any more conventional work on display which fails to resonate with you - what's the difference? .
Posted
Wet pebbles on a beach , fallen leaves , hoar frost on bracken. I think most people artists or otherwise can be entranced and moved by natures paintings.
I freely admit I don't either understand a uniform red brick wall built on a gallery floor , miles and miles of woven human hair holding up bicycle parts ...the ubiquitous unmade bed and animal parts in formaldehyde .
I also freely admit I think they are rubbish and someone with an inflated ego is taking me and others for a ride. Natures art sends me into raptures and a lot of contemporary paintings do the same .
An appreciation of beautiful things for me does attack the senses and makes me feel humbled.
>But there are a lot of well off charlatans out there .
I suppose a parallel could be made with the fashion world. The catwalk seems to abound with ridiculous garments and ideas seen once and then buried never to be seen again.
They say art is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think it's being elitist to be honest about what you really dislike.
Edited
by NorthLight
Posted
Well said Sylvia, I couldn't have put it better myself. I was out with the dog earlier, the clouds were forming wonderful shapes and the trees looked beautiful with the wonderful colours. I stood and looked for ages. Now if I had been with a friend, who is not arty at all, she wouldn't have seen the beauty I could see. So I think we have to go by that saying 'art is in the eye of the beholder'. There are some paintings on the gallery which I think are pretty poor and yet there are loads of comments telling that person how wonderful they are. I don't get it, and sometimes think "is it me?" We all see things differently and that is good, it would be a strange old world if we were all the same and didn't have differing opinions. I'm rambling now so I'll stop.
Posted
Interesting thoughts Micheal and yes I like you am often captivated by random patterns , shapes , and colours I observe in life ; recently I was overjoyed looking at the colours a stained glass window cast upon a floor .
Here is the difference though my feelings are individual to me I don't expect others to get it , a lot of this type of art carries a very high price tag and how come the moneyed type always get it and understand the message collectively but yet the average man on the street does not ?
Posted
Yes I do agree that much that poses as modern art leaves me cold but I must temper that by saying that much doesn't. Mind you much that is lauded in the traditional fields of art also leaves me decidedly goose pimpled.
I think the point I was attempting to make is that just because something doesn't come under the rigid definition of art doesn't necessarily make it less meritorious. For this reason I do get a bit itchy when I see work dismissed out of hand solely on the arguable grounds that it ' isn't art' accompanied by the sub-text 'it isn't therefore any good'.
Posted
What gets me amongst amateur artists is that the worth of a "work of art", or indeed whether or not it really is a work of art, is tied to the number of man-hours that went into it. A ten-minute sketch that appeals to me will be dismissed in favour of a work that took a loong time to paint, and is completely dead, but is "obviously a real work of art."
Gerry
Posted
Gerry - I tend to avoid the question if someone asks me how long a painting took, because as we both know, and probably as we all know, time has nothing to do with it. A painting I like more than many of mine is a little oil on a cigar-box lid that took me ten minutes at the outside to paint: I'm not trying to sell this one, but if I were, I'd probably not reveal how short a time it took. I've spent days over some paintings that didn't work out, an hour or so over several that did .... things either flow or they don't; and sometimes you work in deliberate layers to achieve a result, but I don't get paid by the hour (when I'm paid at all) so why should it matter to a buyer? Actually, I think it rarely does - this is the sort of thing that interests those who wouldn't buy anyway, but maybe like to convince themselves that they could do what you do "if only I had the time", as if their lives are so PACKED with honest toil and hard labour that they'd fit in a painting, or a symphony, or a novel if only they could be spared from their vital work..... This sort of stuff is all very well for you chaps with time on your hands, but for those of us out there striving for Great Britain PLC (a phrase I especially dislike and for which some uniquely painful punishment ought to be devised), well we just can't fit it in...... No: well, we should probably be grateful that you can't.
As for old Izzy Tart ......... well, there's no answer to this, is there...? We've had a flavour of it here now and then, though here it usually comes down to a contest between Painter A and Painter B - interestingly it's invariably modern painters, or post-war anyway, who divide opinion most. I have painters I don't like at all; and some for whom I can see no favourable argument - I'm with Brian Sewell on Sir Howard Hodgkin, for example - don't like his work at all; I suppose it's art, but I can't see it. On the whole though, there are very few painters from whom I derive no pleasure at all, from Pallaiuolo (or something like that) to Lowry, El Greco to Pollock, Rembrandt to Rothko. I don't get conceptual art (and I think the term is daft in itself) and don't have much time for the "post skills generation", because it's not only skills they lack: and no, I don't think it's elitist to say that, either. Take the work of Billy Childish, for example .....
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I'm not sure if I actually complain about contemporary art but I generally give it a wide berth, it's just not my thing. However, I do appreciate the sort of things that Michael and other's have talked about, I also see beauty and inspiration within my surroundings be it nature or man made.
My gripe is that it should stay there and not be bought into a gallery by some 'artist' with an over-inflated ego and told what an important exhibit this is and that we should all appreciate it as art. These so called 'artists' have limited skills and are generally devoid of any talent but possess great marketing skills to con the public and the art critics alike who are quick to jump on the band-wagon for fear of being left out.
I'll stick to my painting and drawing, skills that I'm glad that most of us on this site consider to be worthy of being called art.
Posted
if you create then it's art i reckon...it's like music with all it's diverse styles..classical to punk..each and everyone has a place in the art world....recently went to see the Emit's bed at the Tate and one felt where is the art in that but yet again one has to respect the creative process and find a level ground or just pass it by....